https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #51 from David Brown ---
(In reply to M Welinder from comment #48)
> It's your (1). gcc is changing a program that can rely on errno not being
> changed to one where the C library can change it. (The current C library or
> any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #49 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to M Welinder from comment #48)
> It's your (1). gcc is changing a program that can rely on errno not being
> changed to one where the C library can change it. (The current C library or
> any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #48 from M Welinder ---
It's your (1). gcc is changing a program that can rely on errno not being
changed to one where the C library can change it. (The current C library or
any future library that the resulting binary may be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #47 from David Brown ---
(In reply to M Welinder from comment #46)
> Should "-std=c99" imply turning off these optimizations?
>
> Creating calls to, say, strlen is incompatible with the C99 standard and
> perhaps better limited to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #46 from M Welinder ---
Should "-std=c99" imply turning off these optimizations?
Creating calls to, say, strlen is incompatible with the C99 standard and
perhaps better limited to "-std=gnu-something" or an opt-in f-flag.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael.meier at hexagon dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hiraditya at msn dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rafael_andreas at hotmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #42 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #41)
> > Josef Wolf mentioned that he ran into this on the gcc-help mailing list
> > here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2019-10/msg00079.html
>
> I don't think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #41 from Rich Felker ---
> Josef Wolf mentioned that he ran into this on the gcc-help mailing list here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2019-10/msg00079.html
I don't think that's an instance of this issue. It's normal/expected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #40 from Eric Gallager ---
Josef Wolf mentioned that he ran into this on the gcc-help mailing list here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2019-10/msg00079.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #38 from Marc Glisse ---
*** Bug 82845 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at westcontrol dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||knakahara at netbsd dot org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Evan Langlois fd935653 at opayq dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fd935653 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
M Welinder terra at gnome dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||terra at gnome dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #32 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014, terra at gnome dot org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
M Welinder terra at gnome dot org changed:
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah, I'd say we could document that gcc doesn't support any implementations
where memcpy/memmove/memset clobber errno.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #29 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #28)
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 02:16:38PM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Honza, is there a more fancy way of doing this?
The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #30 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thus, from 4.8.3, 4.9.1 and 4.10.0 on -ffreestanding, -fno-hosted and
-fno-builtin
will cause -ftree-loop-distribute-patterns to _not_ be enabled by default
with -O3+ (you can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||exmortis at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Janosch Rux from comment #24)
When upgrading our build environment we ran into this. We worked around the
way mentioned in the comments.
No Problems with: 4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #28 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx ---
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 02:16:38PM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Honza, is there a more fancy way of doing this?
The only correct way to fix this is to honor -ffreestanding
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Janosch Rux janosch.rux at web dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janosch.rux at web
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #22 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #21)
-fno-tree-loop-distribute-patterns is the reliable way to not transform loops
into library calls.
Thanks!
Adding this fixed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 2 Oct 2013, bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #22 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #18 from Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com ---
I notice(In reply to Brooks Moses from comment #12)
Now, if this replacement still happens when you compile with -nostdlib, that
would be a bug since it becomes legal code in that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #11 from Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com ---
(In reply to Brooks Moses from comment #10)
Other than the documentation issues, this seems like a non-bug.
A non-bug? If you write a memcpy function by hand and call it memcpy, gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #12 from Brooks Moses brooks at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paulo J. Matos from comment #11)
A non-bug? If you write a memcpy function by hand and call it memcpy, gcc
replaces the function body by a call to memcpy which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #13 from Max Reitz xanclic at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Brooks Moses from comment #12)
Now, if this replacement still happens when you compile with -nostdlib, that
would be a bug since it becomes legal code in that case. But
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #14 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
The relevant option is -ffreestanding, not -nostdlib.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #15 from Max Reitz xanclic at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #14)
The relevant option is -ffreestanding, not -nostdlib.
If you're referring to me, I'll be glad to cite my OP for you :D
Compiling the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #16 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
That's exactly what I wrote.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #17 from Max Reitz xanclic at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #16)
That's exactly what I wrote.
Ah, okay, sorry I misunderstood.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Brooks Moses brooks at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brooks at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Jeff Cook j...@deseret-tech.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||j...@deseret-tech.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2013-04-09
09:59:20 UTC ---
Started with Richard Biener's http://gcc.gnu.org/r188261 aka PR53081 fix, which
added or improved memcpy recognition. I'm guess the new code fails to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #5 from Max Reitz xanclic at gmail dot com 2013-04-09 13:02:19
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Just add -fno-tree-loop-distribute-patterns to the already long list of
options
you need for compilation of certain routines in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-04-09 13:17:10 UTC ---
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013, xanclic at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #5 from Max Reitz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #7 from Max Reitz xanclic at gmail dot com 2013-04-09 13:20:06
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013, xanclic at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
--- Comment #5 from
51 matches
Mail list logo
